California Supreme Court to Decide Gay Marriage Cases

[Judi Lynn]

California Supreme Court to Decide Gay Marriage Cases (Update1)

By Karen Gullo

Dec. 20 (Bloomberg) -- The California Supreme Court agreed to review state laws barring same-sex marriage, setting the stage for the court to decide whether California becomes the second U.S. state after Massachusetts to allow the unions.

The seven-member court said today it will weigh whether a same-sex marriage ban is discriminatory. A San Francisco judge ruled the laws unconstitutional last year. An appeals court reversed in October, voting 2-1 to reinstate them, saying that only the legislature could change state marriage statutes. The supreme court will review six cases pending over the issue.

``Marriage equality is the major civil rights issue of our time and the state's highest court clearly recognizes it should have the final word on the issue in California,'' said San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera in a statement. San Francisco's decision last year to allow gay couples to marry sparked the lawsuits to be decided.

The California court will join a growing number of state supreme courts in ruling on the issue. New Jersey's Supreme Court on Oct. 25 held that same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights as married heterosexual couples. On Dec. 14, the New Jersey Legislature passed a measure allowing same-sex civil unions. In 2003, Massachusetts's highest court threw out a ban on such unions, making it the only state to allow gay marriage.
(snip/...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aVqfYn5Nq7OY&refer=home

[Der Blaue Engel]

1. Yeah, baby!

San Francisco values!!!! Woohoo!!!!! :D

[Mz Pip]

2. Wouldn't count on it.

The CA Supreme Court is pretty conservative.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Lautremont]

3. But how can even conservatives justify denying marriage

to people on the basis of their sexual orientation? That seems, I don't know, unconstitutional.

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. The Washington Court admitted it was unconstitutional, but...

They then rationalized that the state has a "legitimate interest" in preserving marriage as existing solely for the purpose of having and raising children, and this interest takes precedent over what would otherwise be a violation of the state constitution.

Thus, the initiative I am proposing in less than three weeks (see sig.) :evilgrin: